Question: How many people from the House of Representatives did not vote?

Answer: Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. <hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats . <hl> Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

At the official counting of the electoral votes on January 6, a motion was made contesting Ohio's electoral votes. Because the motion was supported by at least one member of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, election law mandated that each house retire to debate and vote on the motion. In the House of Representatives, the motion was supported by 31 Democrats. It was opposed by 178 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent. <hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats <hl>. Four people elected to the House had not yet taken office, and one seat was vacant. In the Senate, it was supported only by its maker, Senator Boxer, with 74 Senators opposed and 25 not voting. During the debate, no Senator argued that the outcome of the election should be changed by either court challenge or revote. Senator Boxer claimed that she had made the motion not to challenge the outcome, but to "shed the light of truth on these irregularities."

<hl> Not voting were 52 Republicans and 80 Democrats <hl> .


Question: What did Kerry say affected the ability to know if the results of the Ohio vote was unbiased?

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Answer: "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters."

<hl> Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that <hl> "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." <hl> In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: Which Democratic official supported Kerry's theory about the Ohio votes?

Answer: Howard Dean

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." <hl> In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman <hl> Howard Dean <hl> said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."


Question: What was said about the devices used to collect the votes, in Ohio?

Answer: the machines were not reliable

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... <hl> We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable . <hl> It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and <hl> the machines were not reliable <hl>. It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. That's what we suspect has happened."

We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and <hl> the machines were not reliable <hl> .


Question: Who was targeted for defrauding the electoral process, in Ohio?

Answer: the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. <hl> It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections . <hl> That's what we suspect has happened."

Kerry would later state that "the widespread irregularities make it impossible to know for certain that the [Ohio] outcome reflected the will of the voters." In the same article, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided... We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable. It should not be a surprise that <hl> the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections <hl>. That's what we suspect has happened."

It should not be a surprise that <hl> the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections <hl> .


Question: Who was called in to watch over the presidential election in 2004?

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

Answer: the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004

<hl> At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 . <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, <hl> the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 <hl>. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, <hl> the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004 <hl> .


Question: Was this the only occasion the OSCE was invited to preside over a presidential election?

Answer: It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past.

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. <hl> The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. <hl> It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. <hl> In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."


Question: What were the findings of the OSCE team?

Answer: mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. <hl> The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document . <hl> They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States <hl> mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document <hl>. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States <hl> mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document <hl> .


Question: What type of values did the OSCE determine were adhered to during the election process?

Answer: long-standing democratic tradition

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. <hl> They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long-standing democratic tradition , including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. <hl> There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

At the invitation of the United States government, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) sent a team of observers to monitor the presidential elections in 2004. It was the first time the OSCE had sent observers to a U.S. presidential election, although they had been invited in the past. In September 2004 the OSCE issued a report on U.S. electoral processes and the election final report. The report reads: "The November 2, 2004 elections in the United States mostly met the OSCE commitments included in the 1990 Copenhagen Document. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a <hl> long-standing democratic tradition <hl>, including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process. There was exceptional public interest in the two leading presidential candidates and the issues raised by their respective campaigns, as well as in the election process itself."

They were conducted in an environment that reflects a <hl> long-standing democratic tradition <hl> , including institutions governed by the rule of law, free and generally professional media, and a civil society intensively engaged in the election process.


Question: What finance act affected the 2004 election?

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Answer: the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

<hl> The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). <hl> Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by <hl> the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 <hl> (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)


Question: Where did the moniker McCain-Feingold Bill come from?

Answer: its sponsors in the United States Senate

<hl> The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate ). <hl> Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for <hl> its sponsors in the United States Senate <hl>). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for <hl> its sponsors in the United States Senate <hl> ).


Question: How did the 527 groups come up with their title?

Answer: Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code , these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code <hl>, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

<hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code <hl> , these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns.


Question: What stipulation enabled the 527 groups to campaign for funds?

Answer: as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. <hl> Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns . <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes <hl> as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns <hl>. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes <hl> as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns <hl> .


Question: What is one of the named 527 groups from the 2004 election?

Answer: MoveOn.org

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. <hl> Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, MoveOn.org , the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. <hl> Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

The 2004 election was the first to be affected by the campaign finance reforms mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain–Feingold Bill for its sponsors in the United States Senate). Because of the Act's restrictions on candidates' and parties' fundraising, a large number of so-called 527 groups emerged. Named for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, these groups were able to raise large amounts of money for various political causes as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political campaigns. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, <hl> MoveOn.org <hl>, the Media Fund, and America Coming Together. Many such groups were active throughout the campaign season. (There was some similar activity, although on a much lesser scale, during the 2000 campaign.)

Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, <hl> MoveOn.org <hl> , the Media Fund, and America Coming Together.


Question: How were viewers able to determine who endorsed political campaign ads, they saw in advertisements??

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

Answer: required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement

<hl> To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement . <hl> Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were <hl> required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement <hl>. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were <hl> required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement <hl> .


Question: What was disallowed in advertising during the two months prior to the general election?

Answer: 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 ( 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name . <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (<hl> 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name <hl>. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 ( <hl> 60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name <hl> .


Question: Official advertisements generally contained what phrase?

Answer: "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message."

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. <hl> Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, <hl> "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.


Question: Independent advertisements generally contained what phrase?

Answer: "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement"

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." <hl> Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" , and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, <hl> "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" <hl>, and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, <hl> "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement" <hl> , and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name.


Question: What was the tag line requirement before?

Answer: Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen.

To distinguish official campaigning from independent campaigning, political advertisements on television were required to include a verbal disclaimer identifying the organization responsible for the advertisement. Advertisements produced by political campaigns usually included the statement, "I'm [candidate's name], and I approve this message." Advertisements produced by independent organizations usually included the statement, "[Organization name] is responsible for the content of this advertisement", and from September 3 (60 days before the general election), such organizations' ads were prohibited from mentioning any candidate by name. <hl> Previously, television advertisements only required a written "paid for by" disclaimer on the screen. <hl>


Question: What action suggested by a state, would have affecting the outcome of the electoral votes?

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

Answer: ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36

<hl> A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 , would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. <hl> Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A <hl> ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 <hl>, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A <hl> ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36 <hl> , would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes.


Question: What unique change to the electoral voting process did Colorado suggest should happen?

Answer: under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. <hl> Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). <hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, <hl> under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system <hl> (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.


Question: Which two states designated their assigned votes based on their districts?

Answer: Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district)

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. <hl> Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system ( Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district) . <hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (<hl> Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district) <hl>. Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system ( <hl> Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district) <hl> .


Question: Did everyone agree that Amendment 36 was a good idea?

Answer: Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). <hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College , and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote. <hl>

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). <hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College <hl>, and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.

<hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College <hl> , and the amendment ultimately failed, receiving only 34% of the vote.


Question: Did Amendment 36 get passed?

Answer: the amendment ultimately failed

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). <hl> Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and the amendment ultimately failed , receiving only 34% of the vote. <hl>

A ballot initiative in Colorado, known as Amendment 36, would have changed the way in which the state apportions its electoral votes. Rather than assigning all 9 of the state's electors to the candidate with a plurality of popular votes, under the amendment Colorado would have assigned presidential electors proportionally to the statewide vote count, which would be a unique system (Nebraska and Maine assign electoral votes based on vote totals within each congressional district). Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and <hl> the amendment ultimately failed <hl>, receiving only 34% of the vote.

Detractors claimed that this splitting would diminish Colorado's influence in the Electoral College, and <hl> the amendment ultimately failed <hl> , receiving only 34% of the vote.


Question: What was the original name of IBM?

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

Answer: Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company

<hl> The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the <hl> Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company <hl> (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: What does IBM stand for?

Answer: International Business Machines

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed " International Business Machines " in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. <hl> The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "<hl> International Business Machines <hl>" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

CTR was renamed " <hl> International Business Machines <hl> " in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary.


Question: In what year was CTR created?

Answer: 1911

<hl> The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in <hl> 1911 <hl> as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: What was the unofficial name given to IBM by analysts?

Answer: Big Blue

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. <hl> Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo. <hl>

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company <hl> Big Blue <hl> for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: Who created the IBM name?

Answer: Thomas J. Watson

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. <hl> The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which <hl> Thomas J. Watson <hl> first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: In what year did the company that was to become IBM form?

Answer: 1911

<hl> The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in <hl> 1911 <hl> as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: What was the name of the company that eventually became IBM?

Answer: Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR)

<hl> The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the <hl> Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) <hl> through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: In what year did IBM get its name?

Answer: 1924

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924 , a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. <hl> The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in <hl> 1924 <hl>, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in <hl> 1924 <hl> , a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary.


Question: What nickname was given to IBM?

Answer: Big Blue

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. <hl> Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo. <hl>

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company <hl> Big Blue <hl> for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: What is one parent company of the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company?

Answer: Computing Scale Company

<hl> The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the Computing Scale Company and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. <hl> CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.

The company originated in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) through the consolidation of The Tabulating Machine Company, the International Time Recording Company, the <hl> Computing Scale Company <hl> and the Bundy Manufacturing Company. CTR was renamed "International Business Machines" in 1924, a name which Thomas J. Watson first used for a CTR Canadian subsidiary. The initialism IBM followed. Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging and its logo.


Question: How many employees did IBM have in 2012?

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

Answer: 435,000 worldwide

<hl> In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees ( 435,000 worldwide ), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. <hl> Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (<hl> 435,000 worldwide <hl>), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees ( <hl> 435,000 worldwide <hl> ), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue.


Question: What was the ranking in terms of market cap for IBM in 2012?

Answer: fourth largest

<hl> In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. <hl> Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the <hl> fourth largest <hl> in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).


Question: In 2011 Forbes, by revenue, ranked IBM at what rank globally?

Answer: 31st largest

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. <hl> Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. <hl> Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the <hl> 31st largest <hl> in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).


Question: At what rank was IBM rated as a global brand by Interbrand?

Answer: №2

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. <hl> Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company). <hl>

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), <hl> №2 <hl> best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).


Question: In 2012 Fortune ranked the largest US firms by number employees, what was IBMs rank?

Answer: second largest

<hl> In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the second largest U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. <hl> Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).

In 2012, Fortune ranked IBM the <hl> second largest <hl> U.S. firm in terms of number of employees (435,000 worldwide), the fourth largest in terms of market capitalization, the ninth most profitable, and the nineteenth largest firm in terms of revenue. Globally, the company was ranked the 31st largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011. Other rankings for 2011/2012 include №1 company for leaders (Fortune), №1 green company in the United States (Newsweek), №2 best global brand (Interbrand), №2 most respected company (Barron's), №5 most admired company (Fortune), and №18 most innovative company (Fast Company).


Question: Under what name do research laboratories operated by IBM work under?

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

Answer: IBM Research

<hl> IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research . <hl> As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into <hl> IBM Research <hl>. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into <hl> IBM Research <hl> .


Question: How many research labs does IBM have world wide?

Answer: 12 research laboratories worldwide

<hl> IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide , bundled into IBM Research. <hl> As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has <hl> 12 research laboratories worldwide <hl>, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has <hl> 12 research laboratories worldwide <hl> , bundled into IBM Research.


Question: In 2013 how many years had IBM generated the most patents by a business?

Answer: 22 consecutive years

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. <hl> As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years . <hl> Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for <hl> 22 consecutive years <hl>. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for <hl> 22 consecutive years <hl> .


Question: How many Nobel Prizes have been won by IBM employees?

Answer: five Nobel Prizes

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. <hl> Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes , six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. <hl> Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered <hl> five Nobel Prizes <hl>, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.

Its employees have garnered <hl> five Nobel Prizes <hl> , six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science.


Question: This IBM invention is known by the acronym UPC, what is the full name?

Answer: Universal Product Code

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. <hl> Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the Universal Product Code (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence. <hl>

IBM has 12 research laboratories worldwide, bundled into IBM Research. As of 2013[update] the company held the record for most patents generated by a business for 22 consecutive years. Its employees have garnered five Nobel Prizes, six Turing Awards, ten National Medals of Technology and five National Medals of Science. Notable company inventions or developments include the automated teller machine (ATM), the floppy disk, the hard disk drive, the magnetic stripe card, the relational database, the <hl> Universal Product Code <hl> (UPC), the financial swap, the Fortran programming language, SABRE airline reservation system, dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), copper wiring in semiconductors, the silicon-on-insulator (SOI) semiconductor manufacturing process, and Watson artificial intelligence.


Question: What was IBM's operating margin in 2004?

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.

Answer: 16.8%

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. <hl> IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013. <hl>

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from <hl> 16.8% <hl> in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.


Question: What were the net profit margins of IBM in 2004?

Answer: 9.0%

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. <hl> IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013. <hl>

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from <hl> 9.0% <hl> in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.


Question: IBM's net profit margins were 16.5% in what year?

Answer: 2013

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. <hl> IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013 , and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013. <hl>

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in <hl> 2013 <hl>, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.

IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in <hl> 2013 <hl> , and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.


Question: IBM's operating margin in 2013 was what?

Answer: 24.3%

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. <hl> IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013. <hl>

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to <hl> 24.3% <hl> in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.


Question: IBM focusing on markets like business continuity, business intelligence, security, and cloud computing is an example of IBM doing what?

Answer: exiting commoditizing markets

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. <hl> Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by exiting commoditizing markets such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. <hl> IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.

IBM has constantly evolved since its inception. Over the past decade, it has steadily shifted its business mix by <hl> exiting commoditizing markets <hl> such as PCs, hard disk drives and DRAMs and focusing on higher-value, more profitable markets such as business intelligence, data analytics, business continuity, security, cloud computing, virtualization and green solutions, resulting in a higher quality revenue stream and higher profit margins. IBM's operating margin expanded from 16.8% in 2004 to 24.3% in 2013, and net profit margins expanded from 9.0% in 2004 to 16.5% in 2013.


Question: In what year did IBM acquire Kenexa?

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

Answer: 2012

IBM acquired Kenexa ( 2012 )

<hl> IBM acquired Kenexa ( 2012 ) <hl> and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

IBM acquired Kenexa (<hl> 2012 <hl>) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].


Question: IBM made an acquisition in 2009, name it.

Answer: SPSS

<hl> IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). <hl> In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and <hl> SPSS <hl> (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].


Question: IBM span off its printer manufacturer in 1991, what was its name?

Answer: Lexmark

<hl> IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). <hl> In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer <hl> Lexmark <hl> (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].


Question: IBM sold two product lines to Lenovo, name them.

Answer: personal computer and x86 server

<hl> IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). <hl> In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its <hl> personal computer and x86 server <hl> businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].


Question: What was the name of the company that IBM Micro Electronics was offloaded to?

Answer: GlobalFoundries

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). <hl> In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to GlobalFoundries , a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. <hl> This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

IBM acquired Kenexa (2012) and SPSS (2009) and PwC's consulting business (2002), spinning off companies like printer manufacturer Lexmark (1991), and selling off product lines like its personal computer and x86 server businesses to Lenovo (2005, 2014). In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to <hl> GlobalFoundries <hl>, a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale. This transition had progressed as of early 2015[update].

In 2014, IBM announced that it would go "fabless" by offloading IBM Micro Electronics semiconductor manufacturing to <hl> GlobalFoundries <hl> , a leader in advanced technology manufacturing, citing that semiconductor manufacturing is a capital-intensive business which is challenging to operate without scale.


Question: On what date did the companies that became the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company get consolidated?

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

Answer: June 16, 1911

<hl> On June 16, 1911 , their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). <hl> CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

On <hl> June 16, 1911 <hl>, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

On <hl> June 16, 1911 <hl> , their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR).


Question: Name the individual that consolidated the companies that were to become the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company.

Answer: Charles Ranlett Flint

<hl> On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). <hl> CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by <hl> Charles Ranlett Flint <hl> to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.


Question: In what year did the companies owned by Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company finally integrate?

Answer: 1933

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in Endicott. <hl> The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. <hl> The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in Endicott. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in <hl> 1933 <hl> and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.


Question: Where was the CTR Business office?

Answer: Endicott

CTR's business office was in Endicott .

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). <hl> CTR's business office was in Endicott . <hl> The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

On June 16, 1911, their four companies were consolidated in New York State by Charles Ranlett Flint to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR). CTR's business office was in <hl> Endicott <hl>. The individual companies owned by CTR continued to operate using their established names until the businesses were integrated in 1933 and the holding company eliminated. The four companies had 1,300 employees and offices and plants in Endicott and Binghamton, New York; Dayton, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto. They manufactured machinery for sale and lease, ranging from commercial scales and industrial time recorders, meat and cheese slicers, to tabulators and punched cards.

CTR's business office was in <hl> Endicott <hl> .